Morris v. State, 92-2796

Decision Date21 July 1993
Docket NumberNo. 92-2796,92-2796
Parties18 Fla. L. Week. D1629 William A. MORRIS, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

William R. Amlong of Amlong & Amlong, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Edward Giles, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

ANSTEAD, Judge.

At issue in this appeal is whether an official of a police agency authorized to serve a search warrant must participate in or supervise a search conducted pursuant to the warrant. We hold that such an official must participate in or supervise the search, and hereby reverse a ruling to the contrary.

TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS

Appellant, William A. Morris, III, is a medical doctor and was charged by information with Medicaid fraud, wherein it was alleged that Morris billed the state in an amount over $200 for medical services not rendered. He moved to suppress evidence seized in a search of his premises by employees of the Florida Auditor General's Office. After an adverse ruling, he pled nolo contendere to the charges, but reserved the right to appeal the ruling on the motion to suppress.

The facts in this case are without dispute. A search warrant was issued to search Morris' premises for certain records. The warrant was directed to several police agencies, including "the Chief of Police,

                Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, or any of his Police Officers."   Subsequently, Morris' office was searched by six employees of the Auditor General's Office accompanied by a Fort Lauderdale police officer.  Dr. Morris was not present.  The officer provided a copy of the warrant to the doctor's receptionist and then waited in the reception area while the employees conducted the search in other areas of the physician's office.  The officer did not take part in the search or take custody of any of the records.  After the Auditor General employees concluded the search, the officer signed the inventory sheet, which was prepared by the Auditor General employees, at their request but without checking its accuracy or determining what was actually seized by the employees.  Three groups of materials described in the warrant were seized by the Auditor General employees:  (1) patient files specified by name and number;  (2) 38 daily sign-in logs for office patients;  and (3) miscellaneous forms (e.g., blank Medicaid forms, billing manuals, remittance vouchers, and Medicaid payment forms for 1989-1991).  The officer also testified that he did not know what a Medicaid claim form, HRS handbook, remittance vouchers, etc., looked like, nor where they would be located
                
LAW AND ANALYSIS

By statute, the Auditor General of Florida is given broad authority to investigate Medicaid fraud and to examine the records of certain health care providers. However, the authority to examine records does not extend to physicians. Section 409.920(10)(a), Florida Statutes (1991) states in relevant part that:

(10) In carrying out his duties and responsibilities under this section, the Auditor General may:

(a) Enter upon the premises of any health care provider, excluding a physician, participating in the Medicaid program to examine all accounts and records that may, in any manner, be relevant in determining the existence of fraud in the Medicaid program....

(Emphasis added). Hence, to examine or seize the records of a physician, the government must secure a search warrant or utilize other lawful process. As to search warrants, section 933.08, Florida Statutes (1991) provides:

Search warrants to be served by officers mentioned therein.--The search warrant shall in all cases be served by any of the officers mentioned in its direction, but by no other person except in aid of the officer requiring it, said officer being present and acting in its execution.

(Emphasis added). Because of the importance and the constitutional dimension to a citizen's right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, statutes authorizing searches and seizures should be strictly construed, and the issuance of search warrants and searches conducted pursuant thereto must strictly conform to such statutory provisions. State v. Tolmie, 421 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

Under section 933.08, the persons authorized in a warrant to conduct a search and seize the items described must actually execute the warrant and conduct the search. In Hesselrode v. State, 369 So.2d 348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 381 So.2d 766 (Fla.1980), the second district invalidated a search conducted by police officers from one jurisdiction where the warrant was directed to officials of another jurisdiction, even though officers of the designated jurisdiction were present during the search. See also Stewart v. State, 389 So.2d 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).

Subsequently, in State v. Wade, 544 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 553 So.2d 1168 (Fla.1989), the court approved the use of non-police advisers to aid the police in identifying computer parts described in a search warrant because, the court noted, police officers are not generally trained in the recognition of computer parts and equipment.

Although Wade did not mention the Hesselrode or Stewart decisions, and did not expressly address the degree of participation by the assisting civilians, the opinion suggests that the civilians' role was not extensive. For instance, the court began the discussion by noting that "the use of advisers to identify items encompassed by a search warrant is not without precedent." 544 So.2d at 1030. Further, the court reasoned that "[w]ere they [the police] not allowed to utilize the assistance of experts to identify such property, then it would simply be impossible for law enforcement officers to execute a search warrant for the seizure of computer equipment and parts." Id.

Initially, we do not believe that section 409.920(10)(a), and its exclusion of a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Vargas v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 1, 1994
    ...the search warrant directed to officers of Duval County was invalidly executed by an unauthorized Clay County officer: Morris v. State, 622 So.2d 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); State v. Griffis, 502 So.2d 1356 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 513 So.2d 1063 (Fla.1987); Hesselrode v. State, 369 So.2d......
  • Haire v. FLA. DEPT. OF AGR. & CONS. SERV.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • February 12, 2004
    ...we reject the petitioners' argument that because search warrant statutes are to be strictly construed, see, e.g., Morris v. State, 622 So.2d 67, 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), chapter 933 must expressly authorize the issuance of multiple warrants based on a single affidavit in order for a magistra......
  • Conley v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • April 19, 2001
    ...as a protection to our citizens when their privacy is lawfully intruded upon by a search pursuant to a warrant." Morris v. State, 622 So.2d 67, 69 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1993). s 61. Conley admits that many policy arguments support civilian participation in criminal investigations. Civilian progr......
  • State v. Kraft
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • August 19, 2020
    ...offenses. § 933.02, Fla. Stat.Florida requires strict construction of "statutes authorizing searches." Morris v. State , 622 So. 2d 67, 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The State must adhere to that mandate. See id. Because Florida law does not expressly authorize either audio or video surveillance ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT